DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the light sources of Church are not modular. The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. It is noted that Applicant only considered the disclosure of Church and not the combination of the teachings of Church and Freitag as presented in the previous office action. The Courts have held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Church and Freitag do not disclose wherein the first modular light device is positioned in an orientation to face the second modular light device and detect light transmitted by the second modular light device. The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. It is noted that the limitations of “wherein the modular light device is configured to be positioned in an orientation facing a second modular light device that is positioned within the electronic device” and “wherein at least one of the one or more light sensors of the first modular light device is configured to detect light transmitted by the second modular light device” do not further limit the structure of the recited modular light device as the limitations merely regard an intended use of the apparatus as the combined modular light device of Church and Freitag is capable of being position in an orientation facing another modular light device and the light sensors of the device are necessarily capable of detecting light transmitted by another light source such as from a second modular light device. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 14-41, 44-52 and 55-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Church et al. (US 2019/0209718; hereinafter “Church”) in view of Freitag et al. (US 2018/0113066; hereinafter “Freitag”).
In regard to claim 1, Church discloses a light device (defined by the array of light sources 104) capable of being positioned within an electronic device (system 100 having a treatment chamber 102 which has not been explicitly recited but included for clarity of the record) for treating a biological fluid (such as biological fluids 108 and 110 which have not been explicitly recited but included for clarity of the record), wherein the light device includes a plurality of components collectively configured to transmit light to one or more biological fluids for treatment, the light device comprising: a light source array chamber (as defined by the area under the platform 144 having the height defined by distance 156 to the array of light sources 104) configured to transmit light, wherein the light source array chamber comprises: one or more light source arrays 104, each comprising a plurality of light sources configured to generate UV light (see [0105]); and one or more light sensors 112 configured to detect light; a window portion (platform 144) configured to pass UV light generated by the plurality of light sources from the one or more light source arrays of the light source array chamber to the one or more biological fluids for treatment, wherein the window portion (platform 144) comprises a window material covering or enclosing an opening of the modular light device; and a driver (control circuitry 126 which sends “control signals to various components of the treatment chamber” to control the treatment parameters or another necessary structural element to activate the light sources 104; [0111]) communicatively coupled and configured to operate one or more components of the plurality of components of the light device, wherein the light device is capable of being positioned at a treatment chamber within the electronic device in an orientation to transmit light to one or more biological fluids in the treatment chamber of the electronic device. See [0101], [0105], [0123], [0165]-[0174] and Figures 1A-1E.
Church is silent in regard to wherein the light device is modular such that the device has its own housing having a window portion comprised of a window material covering or enclosing an opening of the housing such that the device transmits light to one or more biological fluids positioned on a platform.
Freitag discloses a system for irradiating biological fluids comprising an irradiation system 10 having a modular light engine 12 which has an array 20 of LEDs for producing UV-C radiation. A detailed depiction of the modular light engine 400 in Figures 8-9 depicts a housing (frame 404) for the components, such as the array of light emitting devices 420, of the modular light engine. Freitag further discloses wherein the modular light engine includes a window portion (coupling optics 30) made from UV transparent materials (i.e. a window material) for transmitting the UV light. See [0037]-[0038], [0059]-[0062] and Figures 1 and 8-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light device of the electronic device of Church in a modular form as disclosed by Freitag for the purpose of allowing the removal, repair and/or replacement of individual light emitting devices in the array without creating any new or unexpected results. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). Thus, the combined modular device of Church and Freitag would be capable of being used in an electronic device such that biological fluids positioned on a platform in the treatment chamber therein can be irradiated, as the modular device would be capable of being positioned in an orientation facing a second modular light device positioned within the electronic device, and wherein at least one of the one or more light sensors would necessarily be capable of detecting light transmitted by a second modular light device as such limitations do not further define the structure of the instantly recited modular light device but merely regard an intended manner of operation of the modular light device.
In regard to claims 2-4, Church is silent in regard to wherein the light source array chamber comprises one or more temperature sensors.
Freitag discloses that temperature sensors 1310 can be placed to directly measure the temperature of one of the light sources which are mounted or bonded to a substrate 1308 (viewed to be analogous to a PCB). See Figure 13 and [0077]
Freitag does not explicitly discloses wherein the one or more temperature sensors are implemented using thermistors as recited in claim 3 or wherein the substrate is a PCB as recited in claim 4. The Examiner takes Official Notice that thermistors and PCBs are extremely well known in the art to be used as temperature sensors and substrates for electrical components such as LEDs and it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a thermistor and PCB to use as a temperature sensor and substrate in the above combined device, respectively, without creating any new or unexpected results. As Applicant has not traversed the above assertion of official notice, the well-known in the art statement is take to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(c). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have directly measured the temperature at a junction between a light source of the one or more light sources and the PCB on which the light source is disposed upon in the above combined device as Freitag discloses that the temperature of the light source can be directly measured and such would merely amount to rearrangement of the structures without producing any new or unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claims 5-9 and 56, Church discloses wherein each light source of the plurality of light sources emits light having a full-width half-maximum (FWHM) spectral bandwidth of less than 20 nanometers (claim 5) from light-emitting diodes (claim 8), wherein the one or more arrays of light sources each comprises a respective first light source channel (one or more light source channels 106) configured to emit ultraviolet light with a first peak wavelength of the array (claim 9) in the UV-A spectrum (first half of claim 7), and a respective second light source channel (another of the one or more light source channels 106) configured to emit ultraviolet light with a second peak wavelength of the array in the UV-A, UV-B or UV-C spectrum (second half of claim 7, [0105]) thus being capable of differing from the first peak wavelength by at least 5 nanometers (explicitly taught in [0106]) as recited in claim 6. See [0102]-[0109].
In regard to claims 10, 35, 39-41, 44-51 and 58-59, it is noted that the claims regard either the electronic device, the contents of the electronic device during an intended operation thereof, the intended workpiece of the light sources of the device, manner of operating the device (i.e. how the dose/treatment time/intensity of light is determined), and/or the combination of the modular light device(s) within the electronic device. However, these limitations do not further limit the positively recited structure of the modular light device as recited in independent claim 1. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). It is held that the above combined device is capable of performing all the recited intended uses of the device. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
In regard to claims 14-16, Church discloses wherein the modular light device comprises one or more heat exchangers 122 configured to transfer heat away from the light source array and/or the modular light device (claim 14) wherein the one or more heat exchangers are configured to exchange heat with air that is passed across the one or more heat exchangers from one or more fans of the electronic device (heating/cooling unit 114 which can comprise a fan; structure is not explicitly recited as it is stated to be a component of the electronic device but is included for clarity of the record) to transfer heat away from the light source array and/or the modular light device as recited in claims 15 and 16. See [0112] and Figure 1B.
In regard to claims 17-19, Church discloses wherein the window material is made of glass as recited in claim 17 or a polymeric material (“plastic”) as recited in claim 18. Church does not explicitly disclose wherein the window portion is capable of being at least 80% transmissive for the produced UV light but does disclose that the material is selected to achieve the selected wavelength […] transparencies” as recited in claim 19. See [0121]. However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a material with at least an 80% transmissivity for UV light which is generated by the device without creating any new or unexpected results. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
In regard to claims 20-23, Church discloses wherein the modular light device comprises one or more light sensors 112 disposed on the one or more of the light source arrays 104 as recited in claim 20 or disposed at the window portion (platform 144) and configured to detect light generated by the modular light device as recited in claim 21. See Figure 1E and [0174]. Thus, it is viewed that the modular light device of the above combined device is configured to perform a test comprising: transmitting light from one or more light source arrays of the light source array chamber of the modular light device; and detecting the light transmitted by the one or more light source arrays by one or more light sensors of the modular light device as recited in claim 22 as the light sensors are capable of receiving the light. See [0176]. Church further teaches wherein the modular light device comprises one or more circuits (such circuitry is necessary to place and receive data from a sensor 112 on the platform 144) disposed at the window portion (platform 144), and wherein the one or more circuits comprise one or more light sensors 112 disposed on the circuits and configured to detect light generated by the modular light device as recited in claim 23.
In regard to claims 24-26, Church discloses wherein the treatment chamber 102 includes a plurality of reflector panels (walls 116, 118 and 120a-d which are coated with reflective materials) as recited in claim 24. Church teaches wherein the plurality of reflector panels are disposed in the light source array chamber so as to minimize a loss of light energy as the materials can reflect 90% or more of the light incident on the surface as recited in claim 25. See [0115]. Church teaches that wherein the one or more light sensors (168 or 172) of the light source array chamber can be retro-reflective sensors, and thus must be oriented so as to be capable of detecting light reflected from the generated by a separate modular light device as recited in claim 26. See [0166]-[0174].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the reflective coating along one or more edges of the light source array chamber of the above combined invention for the purpose of increasing the amount of UV irradiation which is directed towards the treatment chamber of the electronic device during the intended use of the modular light device.
In regard to claim 27, Church discloses wherein the one or more light sensors are implemented using photodiodes. See [0188].
In regard to claims 28-30, Church discloses wherein the plurality of light sources are configured to generate UV-A light as recited in claim 28 with a first peak wavelength from about 315 nm to about 350 nm as recited in claim 29 or wherein the plurality of light sources are configured to generate UV-B or UV-C light as recited in claim 30. See [0105].
In regard to claims 31-34, Freitag discloses wherein the housing comprises one or more electronic interfaces (coupling electronics 22) configured to communicatively couple the modular light device to the electronic device as recited in claim 31. It is held that the coupling electronics must necessarily include a communications port and a power port configured to allow the system to transmit commands, data and power to the modular light device as recited in claims 33 and 34. See [0040]. Freitag further discloses wherein system includes an interlock connection (safety interlock system) configured to allow the system to turn off the modular light engine 12 as recited in claim 32.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the electronic interfaces and interlock system of Freitag with the above combined invention for the purpose of allowing for data and power connection of the modular device to the electronic device and to safely operate the modular device.
In regard to claims 36-37, Church discloses wherein the plurality of light sources of the light source array chamber collectively generate light such that an irradiance of the light is substantially uniform at a surface of the biological fluid such that a variance in the irradiance of the light across a surface of the biological fluid is less than 25%. See [0009], [0024], [0060], [0124] and [0135]-[0137].
In regard to claim 38, Church discloses wherein the plurality of light sources of the light source array chamber are LEDs and that the angle of the light sources can be adjusted with respect to a normal direction. See [0103]. Church is silent in regard to the LEDs having a beam angle of 110 to 130 degrees. However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected LEDs with an appropriate beam angle for satisfying the illumination specification of the desired output of the above combined modular light device as beam angle is a property of LEDs. The selection of beam angle can be made through routine experimentation and without the creation of any new or unexpected results. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claim 52, Church discloses wherein the modular light device is configured and capable of performing a calibration process as claimed as it is disclosed that the control circuitry 126 may adjust or set an intensity of light emitted by each light source channel 106 by detecting the light using light sensors 112. Thus, the control circuitry is necessarily configured and capable of calibrating the output of the light sources. See [0182].
In regard to claim 55, Church discloses wherein light device comprises a heat exchanger 112 and wherein the temperature of the chamber 102 can be further controlled through the use of a fan. See [0112].
Freitag further discloses the use of a fan for circulating air. See [0057].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a fan with the above combined modular light device for the purpose of further including a structure to actively cool the device. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
In regard to claims 57, 60 and 61, Church does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more circuits has a width of 5 millimeters or less as recited in claim 57, 4 millimeters or less as recited in claim 60 or 3 millimeters or less as recited in claim 61 . However, the Courts have held that the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further, it is noted that the criticality of the width of each circuit has not been provided. Therefore, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal or workable range of circuit width in the absence of any new or unexpected result for the purpose of producing a device with the desired form factor. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claims 62 and 63, Church discloses a controller (integral with control system 126 which also performs the functions of the driver as noted in claim 1; see [0182]) communicatively coupled to the driver and configured to operate the driver and wherein the controller (see Figure 1) is configured to facilitate communication between the electronic device (not explicitly recited but equivalent to the computer system 128 which is disclosed to control the operation of the treatment chamber 102 of the system 100) and the modular light device. See [0111]-[0112] and [0182].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included the controller of Church in the above combined modular light device for the purpose of allowing the removal, repair and/or replacement of controller of the modular device without creating any new or unexpected results.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Church in view of Freitag and Metzel et al. (US 2003/0146162; hereinafter “Metzel”).
In regard to claims 12-13, Church and Freitag are silent in regard to wherein the housing comprises one or more tracks to enable the modular light device to be slideably moveable so to remove and insert the modular light device into the electronic device by interfacing with one or more rails.
Metzel discloses a system for treating a biological fluid with light wherein a modular light device (light drawer 60/70) is provided in a housing in the recited form wherein the light drawer 60/70 having tracks (slides 99)can be removed and inserted into the light chamber 42 of the light box 10 by interfacing with one or more rails (not explicitly recited). See Figures 5-6 and paragraphs [0076]-[0078] and [0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the sliding light drawer configuration of Metzel with the above combined modular light device of Church and Freitag for the purpose of allowing for the ease of removal and insertion of the light device with respect to the electronic device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774